I loved the way the report quoted "unnamed consultants" and "unnamed sources". Anyhow, if this were completely true, why are SQ planes not falling off the air? And what about the tens of airlines that send their planes to SIAEC for maintenance? Are they stupid? Plus, QF is sending yet another 744 to SIAEC in 2 weeks. Why are they doing so if SIAEC is running (apparently!) such a dangerous operation?
That aside, it is widely known that SIAEC can compete on price because it allocates fixed overhead costs to SIA, and only charges out the variable costs to its clients. From what I understand, SIAEC regularly bids for projects at a cost 25% lower than the other major MRO operator in SIN, Singapore Technologies Aerospace. This, even though SIAEC's cost base is higher (most of it due to the baggage that comes with legacy carriers.)
Plus, SIAEC workers do not earn crap wages. I know of technicians who walk out with S$8000 (which is about A$6500, but remember that a dollar in Singapore buys you what a dollar in Australia buys you and in the not too distant past our currencies were on par) a month including overtime and weekend shifts.
There are also massive tax breaks for MRO companies in SIN, and with a dollar that is now 25% weaker than the AUD, coupled with a company tax rate of 18% (compared to 30% in Australia) and very low personal income tax rates, all things being equal, of course it is cheaper to run an MRO business in Singapore.
SIAEC may not be the most efficient MRO company around, and I can understand how they manage to achieve a relatively low cost base (world wide) but if they really are indulging in unsafe maintenance practices, I would have expected SQ planes to be falling off the sky.